well duh.....he is going to be president of Libya also. I mean he practically planned the whole attack himself. He used the CIA to train people that would in turn attack the US consulate. He uses the drone to record the entire attack, eats some popcorn, Orders a entire brigade of marines to "stand down" all the while gathering his next promotional video to get him elected in all of his former Muslim countries.

well duh.....he is going to be president of Libya also. I mean he practically planned the whole attack himself. He used the CIA to train people that would in turn attack the US consulate. He uses the drone to record the entire attack, eats some popcorn, Orders a entire brigade of marines to "stand down" all the while gathering his next promotional video to get him elected in all of his former Muslim countries.

What you don't seem to understand (and probably never will for obvious reasons) is that the men and women of the armed forces didn't join because of the lack of danger. This is WHY we exist to begin with. You seem perfectly okay with the fact that these four men were killed Bruce.

This is our job description. This is NOT in the job description of our ambassador.

There was a well established pattern of violence for an entire year leading up to this situation. The ambassador requested security multiple times and was denied every single time. The state department even acknowledged his concern of Al Qaeda backed militia in the area and people scouting the location and then when it all went down the Obama administration denied every request for help that was granted and went as far as relieving two regional commanders for attempting to disobey the stand down order and save our men.

For the high horse you love to ride on you really need to go for a long walk and think about where you stand in terms of morality and what you find acceptable when it comes to protecting our own men overseas against terrorists.

Once you complete that debate in your head... Go to the bathroom, look in the mirror and into your own eyes for a good minute and then ask yourself "What if that was my son or daughter these men betrayed and left to die when they could've saved them with a simple word?"

No not at all! I'm not sure who I want to vote for. Don't really care for Obama. But the biggest hangup I have with Romney is his religion. Other than that he seems like the lesser of the two evils.

Really? When was the last time Mormons rose up against the world and started blowing up public places filled with innocent bystanders?

Get real man. The biggest threat to freedom in this world is the Muslim threat. Our President now is most definitely a muslim sympathizer and even included in his book about how he was born a Muslim, raised a Muslim and is still a Muslim.

The only real Christian ties he has are to a pastor who is labeled as a fanatic himself about how evil the white man is.

No not at all! I'm not sure who I want to vote for. Don't really care for Obama. But the biggest hangup I have with Romney is his religion. Other than that he seems like the lesser of the two evils.

Who gives a fukc about his religion? Although I am a firm believer that our country was founded on Christian values, we aren't electing a new pastor to our church, we are electing someone who can get our country out of this shit storm it is in.

If you really plan to flip a coin, please do the rest of us a favor and don't vote.

I can't believe that after all the comments made that you would base your vote, or hesitation to vote on the fact that we have a moral, God respecting man. Take a look at history and tell me that some of the best presidents ever should not have held the office because they were Christian.

__________________
GLFWDA member since 1979.
Member Southern Michigan Rock Crawlers.

No not at all! I'm not sure who I want to vote for. Don't really care for Obama. But the biggest hangup I have with Romney is his religion. Other than that he seems like the lesser of the two evils.

We are not voting for Pastor in Chief we are voting for Commander in Chief.

We need to look at his accomplishments and who he is and what he stands for.
We have seen 4 years of what Obama is about and what he stands for.

The only thing is we need to sift through tons of stuff to find on Obama because the media has done a great job in hiding and not reporting on issues that if it was a republican it would be in the head lines for weeks on end.

No not at all! I'm not sure who I want to vote for. Don't really care for Obama. But the biggest hangup I have with Romney is his religion. Other than that he seems like the lesser of the two evils.

Let me tell you, Romney's religion is a huge hangup for me as well. I was seriously either not going to vote, or vote for a write-in like Ted. But then I heard the first debate, followed by the second and third and saw that this man, Romney, could restore a functional government through bi-partisan negotiation and teamwork. I'm just so sick of hearing how GW was at fault for everything, that is until the took lead of congress and now suddenly they are to blame. A great leader would never spend an entire term blaming others for the problems he faces rather than trying to find feasible solutions that don't disown half the country.

What you don't seem to understand (and probably never will for obvious reasons) is that the men and women of the armed forces didn't join because of the lack of danger. This is WHY we exist to begin with. You seem perfectly okay with the fact that these four men were killed Bruce.

This is our job description. This is NOT in the job description of our ambassador.

There was a well established pattern of violence for an entire year leading up to this situation. The ambassador requested security multiple times and was denied every single time. The state department even acknowledged his concern of Al Qaeda backed militia in the area and people scouting the location and then when it all went down the Obama administration denied every request for help that was granted and went as far as relieving two regional commanders for attempting to disobey the stand down order and save our men.

For the high horse you love to ride on you really need to go for a long walk and think about where you stand in terms of morality and what you find acceptable when it comes to protecting our own men overseas against terrorists.

Once you complete that debate in your head... Go to the bathroom, look in the mirror and into your own eyes for a good minute and then ask yourself "What if that was my son or daughter these men betrayed and left to die when they could've saved them with a simple word?"

Maybe you should try to explain that to General Ham and General Dempsey:

Quote:

“We quickly responded, as General [Martin] Dempsey [chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] said, in terms of deploying forces to the region,” Panetta continued. “We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. And we were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that.

“But the basic principle here--basic principle--is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real-time information about what's taking place,” said Panetta. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

No, I'm not okay with 4 Americans getting killed. Do you think we'd all be okay instead if 40 American had been killed because they had been sent into a unknown situation unprepared? Apparently you are, thankfully our generals are not. I understand that those in the military are not afraid of danger, and some may even thrive on it. This is exactly why we have generals making decision. We need to get past this notion that we could have sent in the cavalry on their white horses with sabers waving and that the good guys would have won and everyone would be safe. It's the generals that make those decisions, and it has to be that way. Everything I have read says that it was those generals that gave the "stand down" orders, not the president.

Yes, it is obvious that Libya is a dangerous place and there needed to be more security there. But from most reports I've read no reasonable amount of security could have repelled this attack. Having ambassadors living in fortresses defeats the propose of them being there in the first place. I'm sure the ambassador to Libya as well as those in the other dozen or so war torn countries around the world realize the danger they are in. It was thought that the forces in place and the safe rooms provided would be enough to keep them safe. Obviously this was wrong, and 2 men tragically died because of that mistake. But I see no evidence that anything was done with malice, and nothing to suggest that the president was the one to refuse the request for more security. I understand the he's the one ultimately responsible, but for things like this I would expect him to listen to his advisers.

Yes, we have a moral obligation to protect those that we send overseas on out behalf. But there are limits to what is practical. Again, ambassadors are not effective if locked up in fortresses. If the level of danger become to high we should probably just remove them from the country. Maybe that's what should have happened here, but hindsight is 20/20 and all we can do is speculate.

Yes, if my son or daughter was "betrayed and left to die when they could've saved them with a simple word" I would be very upset. I have not seen convincing evidence that that was the case. What I have seen is speculation on what might have happened. I would also be very upset if my son or daughter died because of being sent into a unknown situation, possible unprepared and uninformed about what they would be facing or even knowing exactly what they could or should be accomplishing, even if my child volunteered for it.

Exactly. It's easy for us to sit here nearly 2 months later and say what we think he should have done. It's far more difficult to make split second decisions while the crisis is unfolding. If he sent the military in and they got ambushed and even more got killed he would be accused of killing Americans by sending them in unprepared. It is had turned out to be much ado about nothing he would have been accused of over reacting and wasting resources.

Brewmenn, do you acknowledge now that the administration lied.

Please answer yes or no so we can avoid the liberal mental circle jerk.

Did the administration lie about there knowledge of the event for two weeks after the attack?

If you look at every single fact from economy, national security, employment,
foreign policy, etc., there is absolutely no way Obama has a chance in hell of winning, I am voting for Romney and have probably gotten 40 phone calls from various different polling groups. There is however ONE massive problem in this country, there are more people who won't that expect the people that will to take care of them, that is why Obama will win and it totally disgusts me !!!